GHULAM HAIDER and others vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the petitioners' convictions and sentences for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, who were convicted by a Magistrate Section 30 for offences including house-trespass and causing hurt, contended that the lower courts failed to consider their plea of self-defence and ignored evidence that the complainant party was the aggressor. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding the plea of self-defence and the culpability of the petitioners. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was neither raised nor substantiated by the record, as the trial and appellate courts had concurrently concluded that the petitioners were the aggressors. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as meritless, affirming that factual findings based on evidence are not to be disturbed without demonstrating a clear legal error.
- Can a plea of self-defence be entertained by an appellate court if it was not agitated before the trial court?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the failure to consider a plea of self-defence constitute a miscarriage of justice if the evidence establishes the petitioner as the aggressor?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J . --- The petitioners were tried under sections 337-A(i)(ii), P.P.C. And 452/34, P.P.C.
By learned Magistrate under section 30, Faisalabad, on conclusion whereof the petitioners were convicted under section 452/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and fine of Rs,1,000 each and under section 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iv)/34, P.P.C. To undergo R.I. For 1-1/2 years each. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which was dismissed, however, the conviction/sentence as mentioned hereinabove was reduced to that of already undergone with the further direction that Rs,5,000 each be paid by each of the petitioner as Arsh/Daman/compensation in equal proportions to the complainant and his wife namely Mst.
Sakina who sustained injuries during the occurrence and in case of default to suffer R.I. For 1-1/2 years. The petitioners assailed the said judgment by way of revision which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned.
2. The petitioners appeared in person and at the outset contended that plea of self-defence as agitated before the learned trial and appellate Courts was neither considered nor dilated upon in accordance with law which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the complainant party was aggressor which aspect of the matter has been ignored.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated by the petitioners in the light of record of the case. The entire evidence has been thrashed out. The judgment, dated 8-9-2000 passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad and judgment, dated 23-11-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge have been perused carefully. The judgment impugned has also been perused. After having gone through the entire evidence we are of the view that plea of self- defence was neither agitated nor is available to the petitioners because after having careful appraisal of evidence the learned trial Court A concluded that attack was launched by the petitioners. The appellate Court concurred the said conclusion after having gone through the entire evidence. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial and appellate Courts is strictly in accordance with law. The learned appellate Court has already taken a lenient view for cogent reasons. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the petitioners in the judgment impugned.
' We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave and resultantly the petition is dismissed being meritless.